CHOWTHMAL SHARMA Vs. HIRALAL PATNT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 134(c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate to the effect that the case which was disposed of by a final order of this Court dated 21 -8 -1950 in a at one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) IN the exercise of its revisional Jurisdiction, criminal proceedings initiated on a complaint by the present petitioner in the Court of a Magistrate at Gauhati (in Assam) were quashed at the instance of one of the three accused (Hiralal Patni) in the case. We came to the conclusion that the dispute arose out of a contract. The parties were at issue on several complicated questions of fact and law, the decision of which involved a very elaborate and prolonged inquiry, it was found that the Civil Court was the proper forum for the decision of these questions. The case was regarded as one of an exceptional nature and this in review (sic) was apparent from a bare recital of the two conflicting versions in the case. It was further found that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence either under Section 417, Penal Code, or under Sections 6 and 7, Merchandise Marks Act. An explicit statement that the three accused were personally liable for applying or getting applied false marks did not appear in the complaint or the statement that followed. There was no allegation that the contract was entered into personally by the three accused and they bad any criminal intent to cheat or defraud at that time. Several factors pointing to the absence of good faith on the part of the complainant in instituting the plaint were also noticed and the proceeding pending in the Court of the Magistrate were quashed against all the three accused.

(3.) WE have first to discover what may be described as an objective test or a standard for determining whether a particular case is a fit one for appeal to their Lordships of the Supreme Court turner Article 134(c) of the Constitution of India under the Government of India Act, 1935, and avert before, an aggrieved party in a criminal proceeding had no right of appeal to the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not a Court of appeal in criminal cases but wherever there was substantial or grave in justice by reason of disregard of the principal of natural Justice or by the infringement of the recognised forms of legal process, their Lordship of the Privy Council interfered in the exercise of the prerogative of His Majesty the King Emperor.